linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] fs: remove the never implemented aio

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20161031202521.GN22126@dastard>
Date:   Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:25:21 +1100
From:   Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>,
        Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-aio@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] fs: remove the never implemented aio_fsync file
 operation

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 02:07:54PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:23:31AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > This doesn't belong in this patchset.
> 
> It does.  I can't fix up the calling conventions for a methods that
> was never implemented.

That sounds like a problem with your fix - it should work
regardless of whether a valid/implemented AIO function is called
or not, right? There's no difference between an invalid command,
IOCB_CMD_FSYNC where ->aio_fsync() is null, or some supported
command that immediately returns -EIO, the end result should
be the same...

> > Regardless, can we just implement the damned thing rather than
> > removing it?  Plenty of people have asked for it and they still want
> > this functionality. I've sent a couple of different prototypes that
> > worked but got bikeshedded to death, and IIRC Ben also tried to get
> > it implemented but that went nowhere because other parts of his
> > patchset got bikeshedded to death.
> > 
> > If nothing else, just let me implement it in XFS like I did the
> > first time so when all the bikshedding stops we can convert it to
> > the One True AIO Interface that is decided on.
> 
> I'm not going to complain about a proper implementation, but right now
> we don't have any, and I'm not even sure the method signature is
> all that suitable.  E.g. for the in-kernel users we'd really want a 
> ranged fsync like the normal fsync anyway.

You mean like this version I posted a year ago:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/29/517


Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com